I like the fact that the presenter stresses a couple of points which are often neglected in modern treatments of Atlantis:
- The story of Altantis is a myth created by Plato and recognized as such during Antiquity; the point of this myth was not to preserve a legacy of the remote past, but to make a philosophical and political point. So, while the search for Atlantis may have spurred some interesting archaeological work, it is largely a futile effort.
- The Atlantis described by Plato was not a utopia, or antediluvian paradise on earth, or the source of human high culture, but rather the antagonist (=the bad guys) in a morality tale. This tale had the aim of presenting the Kallipolis of the Republic as having actually existed in the remote past and as having proven the value of its institutions in the conflict with the Atlantean foe.
That, however, presupposes that Plato was a supporter of democracy, and, in particular, its Athenian incarnation. Nothing could be further from the truth: Plato's entire oeuvre is clearly anti-democratic in character; in the Republic, democracy is the second-to-worst political system, one step above tyranny, the worst.
He certainly did not view the conflict between Greece and Persia in political terms: a contrast between freedom and despotism certainly permeated many ancient accounts, but not necessarily the Platonic (*). And, we should not confuse political freedom with democracy: even the writers -such as Herodotus- who presented the Persian Wars along political terms were happy enough to use the oligarchical Spartans as paragons of freedom and its defense, despite their lack of democracy.
(*) If anything, Plato seems to have subscribed to the view that war is "natural" between different descent groups, and is sometimes engendered by economic competition. He would probably have been baffled by the idea that two states, inhabited by people of the same genetic stock, and having no economic quarrels would fight each other because of their differences in constitution.
12 comments:
While Plato's account (ca. 380 BCE) is the earliest attested reference, the context of the discussion, and of the way that Plato brought examples into his dialogs in general, suggests that while Atlantis may have been a myth, that it was probably not a myth that he invented from whole cloth himself, even if his particular telling may have embellished or modified parts of the story.
The fact that Plato's account survived in written form, while other accounts (some of which were never put in writing) did not, may have more to do with his fame as a philosopher and happenstance, than anything else. Plato himself claims that in Critias that his accounts of ancient Athens and Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt by the legendary Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC. In Egypt, Solon met a priest of Sais, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on papyri in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek. And, given the subsequent sack of the library at Alexandria, it would be easy for a multiple century old Egyptian record to be lost, and likewise, given the difficulty of generating copies of documents and all of the history that took place between Plato's time and the modern era in Athens, it would hardly be stunning for an account written by Solon to have been lost somewhere along the way, as Solon's importance has been less widely recognized than Plato's.
The fact that Plato's account survived in written form, while other accounts (some of which were never put in writing) did not, may have more to do with his fame as a philosopher and happenstance, than anything else.
There is no evidence for other accounts that are not derivative of Plato. We have extensive evidence of lost works describing, e.g., the Trojan War: we do not rely on Homer for that event. Moreover, the historicity of the War permeated Ancient Greek culture. So, while we may object to this or that Homeric account of particulars about the war, we cannot really object that a Trojan War really did happen.
The same cannot be said for the tale of Atlantis.
Plato himself claims that in Critias that his accounts of ancient Athens and Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt by the legendary Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC.
And, yet, nothing of that legend about the Athens-Atlantis conflict survived in Egypt, which is peculiar if it was a 9,000-year old tradition as it was said to be.
And, given the subsequent sack of the library at Alexandria
The library of Alexandria existed for centuries after Plato's time, and none of its scholars ever mentioned an Egyptian original for the story of Atlantis.
it would hardly be stunning for an account written by Solon
Solon wrote no account. That is precisely the point of the story: that Solon was presumably so busy during his time, that he never got around to composing his poem about Atlantis, and Critias (a relative of Plato) received the tale through family tradition.
Plato claims that his account is a reproduction of what was told to him by some elder of him (his uncle ?) and to that one by Solon the political "founding father" of classical Athens.
It was a time when oral tradition (and hence faithfulness to its integrity) was important. It is not impossible that Plato made the story up but there is no reason to believe he did, even if, as all myths, it surely includes many inexactitudes.
Most probably the legend talks of the expansiveness of the Megalithic culture, centered around South Iberian civilizations, notably the poorly excavated city known as Castro de Zambujal (Torres Vedras, Portugal), which was linked to the sea by a "marine branch" of exactly the length Plato attributes to Atlantis: c. 10 km, and whose silting (by a tsunami?) is directly related to the collapse or abandonment of the town.
Some online infoat the German Archaeological Institute (which has been leading, slowly, the excavations).
Zambujal was probably central in the Megalithic cultural area and, in phase II, also in the Bell Beaker one. Both these phenomenons expanded into the Western and even Central Mediterranean (Italy, North Africa) in the late Chalcolithic (and persistent into the Bronze Age), exactly as described by Plato for the "Atlantean Empire" (Libya, Tyrsenia).
Meanwhile Mycenaean Greek influence also reached Iberia in the Bronze Age, what is attested by the adoption in El Argar of Greek burial customs (pithos) and vice-versa (tholos - in spite of the Greek name quite older in Iberia in fact).
These interactions (and likely wars) are not just reflected in the myth of Atlantis (where Athens is praised by the Egyptian priests for defeating the Atlanteans, possibly meaning Mycenaean Greece in general) but also in the works of Herakles, two of which (possibly two versions of the same story) take place in the far west: the remote and semi-mythical Hesperides (but not so remote, as it's clear that Greeks were trading and influencing c. 1500 BCE).
Besides, there's no moral in that story: it's just a story of a clash of civilizations and a chthonic catastrophe (not clearly related to the war itself: it seems to take place later and explain the loss of contact).
Besides, there's no moral in that story: it's just a story of a clash of civilizations and a chthonic catastrophe (not clearly related to the war itself: it seems to take place later and explain the loss of contact).
There is a moral in the story, that the political system espoused by Plato is awesome, since it was responsible for the prowess of the 9,000 year old Athenians :) Atlantis is simply the Great Antagonist that all good guys must have.
The thing about the floods and disasters is secondary, and exists to show how the tale was lost and forgotten. It is also consistent with the thrust of Platonic philosophy in general, as it speaks of the impermanence of the world of becoming.
But if you read the narration (widely available online in several languages), Plato does not mention at all the political system of Athens. There is mention to that of Atlantis because it is a quite detailed description (10 federated kings which gather every year to impart justice and ritually "hunt" a bull, drinking then the blood - all reminiscent of bullfight and round table tales - fertile imagination, really) but not much is said of the organization of Athens.
If there's a moral, it'd be in the claim that the Atlanteans became arrogant and greedy (?) and wanted something valuable in exchange for their exports and that was punished by the gods. But it's not a true moral but rather a poor justification for the colonialist war which surely did happen.
The Greeks wanted the strategic tin, probably the most strategic mineral of the Bronze Age, found in large amounts only, of all West Eurasia in NW Iberia and SW Britain, for which access to the Atlantic routes (archaeologically very much demonstrated since c. 3000 BCE, maybe older) was needed. They probably also wanted other mineral resources from the West (gold, silver, copper, amber from the Baltic...) and if the Atlanteans wanted to be paid properly that was a problem, a problem maybe to be solved manu militari (Herakles is said to have defeated three mythical antagonists or to have stolen the golden apples by means of deceiving Atlas).
So in the end there is no "moral": Plato (and/or his sources through his pen) is just giving a pretext for the war: here the "greed" of the colonials, there that they were expanding inside the Mediterranean and posed a threat (surely the same as the Libu) to Egypt, in this story friendly and akin by geography to Greece (in opposition to the blurry, remote and "barbaric" Atlanteans).
At that time there was surely such dichotomy: East-West Mediterranean interactions were very limited (unlike the much better documented Atlantic and West Mediterranean commercial and cultural network) and Greek influence in El Argar is by much the most notable sign of such interactions. So I can well understand that, in spite of all differences, Greeks and Egyptians saw each other as related in geography and civilization by comparison to the barbaric far west.
But if you read the narration (widely available online in several languages), Plato does not mention at all the political system of Athens.
The Timaeus takes place the day after the Republic. When Socrates wishes he could see the city described in the preceding day in action, Critias jumps in to describe Old Athens' conflict with Atlantis.
"I have told you briefly, Socrates, what the aged Critias heard from Solon and related to us. And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon; but I did not like to speak at the moment."
Obviously, the 9,000 years figure is wrong, as there was no Athenian Republic that far back.
There are Egpytian attestations of Minoan civilization and its collapse generally, if not to the specific fall of Atlantis event or other details recounted by Plato. I am not aware of any Egyptian attestations of Atlantic/West Mediterranean megalithic civilization, but this isn't to say that they couldn't have been lost, and indeed, since they would be considerably older, they would be more likely to have been lost over time.
Both the Minoans and the people of coastal Iberia had rituals involving bulls, a history including tsunami experiences, at some point maritime trade with Greeks, and an ultimate downfall as an organized large scale civilization.
The fact that there are now no known Egyptian references to Atlantis doesn't seem all that remarkable given just how much we know of that is lost. On a similar time scale and presenting similar considerations, there are many Hebrew Bible references to texts that are now lost and are not referred to in any independents sources, but every now and then we discover a lost fragment of one of them in some Ethiopian library or Levantine jar buried in the sand, establishing that it once existed. It would hardly be surprising if Plato's dialogs, composed at a similar time, would be the sole surviving reference to third party accounts that didn't persist to the modern era. I wouldn't be shocked to find a passing reference to Atlantis in some long buried Egyptian tomb or grainery or on some sunken ship or in some long lost Arabic translation, a few decades from now.
I wouldn't be shocked to find a passing reference to Atlantis in some long buried Egyptian tomb or grainery or on some sunken ship or in some long lost Arabic translation, a few decades from now.
One can of course argue that anything is _possible_ if it is not directly contradicted by the laws of nature.
But, I don't share your optimism. Plato founded a philosophical school and had many followers, many of whom wrote for centuries after his death, and many of them lived in Egypt. The Timaeus may be the most important Platonic text according to the ancient understanding of Platonism. Nonetheless, no one makes any reference in an independent tradition of Atlantis or even alludes to one.
So, while such a tradition _may_ have existed, there really is no evidence for it.
"The thing about the floods and disasters is secondary, and exists to show how the tale was lost and forgotten. It is also consistent with the thrust of Platonic philosophy in general, as it speaks of the impermanence of the world of becoming."
It also fits with Plato's view that truth is "remembered", that it is a priori, already present in the mind and has to be brought back into consciousness. Also his view that truth is eternal, thus what was true for the Greeks of thousand of years ago was still true for Plato's time.
The water into which Atlantis disappeared alliudes imo to the (metaphorical?) view of Thales, the first Greek ontologist, that water is the substance of all things, in order words it is the formless matter out of which all things are made - and into which they return. Atlantis represents untruth and non-being, which are closely associated for Plato, real Being being eternal and formed, this world being characterised by coming to be and passing away, by approximation to the truth and by decline. Thus politics goes in cycles for Plato, altruistic aristocracy being the summit and democracy the path to tyrranny. Atlantis is a metaphor of one aspect of passing away, non-being, because really passing away is the same process as coming to be and never terminates in absolute non-formlessness (water) but in renewed approximation to form. The world is the flux of Heraclitus.
Hyperboreans are another Atlantean-like tale which was largely mis-used and taken out've its proper geography and context. It was about just as popular as Atlantis was and often both interconnected, in all the fiction and academic or pseudo-academic literature during the 1800's and early 1900's. I think the term has been used for Siberians while Atlantean was used for Cromagnons or Celts in certain race circles or science.
Niebuhr believed that Hyperboreans though were a Pelasgian tribe that lived in Italy/Sicily. Sicily has also been a strong candidate for Atlantis, even in an allegorical sense.
Pelasgian stuff also makes sense, Sergi believed they were real.
Here is some info on Sicily and Atlantis connection from "Atlantis: the Making of Myth" by Phyllis Young Forsyth
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2961/image1rj.jpg
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4708/image2cws.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5073/image3do.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2938/image4kc.jpg
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5760/image11bp.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8408/image5mb.jpg
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1116/image6vg.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9404/image7tua.jpg
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3449/image8zh.jpg
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/6139/image9l.jpg
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/1620/image10z.jpg
The Greeks in the Iliad were also seen not so much as heroes whereas the Trojans were viewed more sympathetically by Homer.
Atlanteans probably not so much the "bad guys" aside from an Athenian bias in portrayal of its enemies even if it was used in an allegorical portrayal for its contemporary rivals and enemies. Athens which was at the time always trying to expand its domain through wars of conquest(hegemony) and control in maritime trade which since the so-called Neolithic existed in the Mediterranean from east to west and west to east.
Interestingly, Hyperboreans are another Atlantean like thing which was largely mis-used and taken out've its proper geography and context. It was about just as popular as Atlantis was and often connected, in all the fiction and academic or pseudo-academic literature.
Niebuhr believed that Hyperboreans though were a Pelasgian tribe that lived in Italy/Sicily. Sicily has also been a strong candidate for Atlantis, even in an allegorical sense.
Pelasgian stuff also makes sense, Sergi believed they were real.
Here is some info on Sicily and Atlantis connection from "Atlantis: the making of Myth" by Phyllis Young Forsyth
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2961/image1rj.jpg
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4708/image2cws.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5073/image3do.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2938/image4kc.jpg
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5760/image11bp.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8408/image5mb.jpg
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1116/image6vg.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9404/image7tua.jpg
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3449/image8zh.jpg
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/6139/image9l.jpg
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/1620/image10z.jpg
Sardinia is also a contender:
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=51890674321
But all stuff regarding ancient myths and legends is shaky ground.
The Greeks in the Iliad were also seen not so much as heroes whereas the Trojans were viewed more sympathetically by Homer.
That is not really true, Homer does not really take sides. Also, there is no distinction in Homer of Greeks vs. Trojans.
Athens which was at the time always trying to expand its domain through wars of conquest
It was not trying to expand its domain at the time that Plato wrote, its glory days were past, and it was just a city trying to remain independent as other Greek cities fought for hegemony.
Interestingly, Hyperboreans are another Atlantean like thing which was largely mis-used and taken out've its proper geography and context. It was about just as popular as Atlantis was and often connected, in all the fiction and academic or pseudo-academic literature.
Hyperboreans were mentioned by multiple authors and from the earliest of times. So, they are much more likely to have a kernel of historicity to them than the Atlanteans. They were certainly heavily mythologized, however.
Post a Comment